Careless, crude and unnecessary

In fact, “existing ICTV programming” has simply been cut off, and NITV has not made any provision that might satisfy the Minister’s direction that there be “substantial participation” of remote television (ICTV) in NITV.

This should come as no surprise since it is clear that NITV, by its organisational design, cannot fulfil the community television function that ICTV has been purpose-built to perform. It is true to form, then, that NITV have rejected the possibility of ICTV maintaining its own community programming block on NITV, and that their inaugural programming schedule does not contain one program made by media makers living and working in these remote communities.

Two different concepts

NITV, with its corporate, top-down, professional structure, and its aspiration to cater to urban audiences, has put in place a raft of commissioning and acquisition guidelines governing everything from program “relevance”, the staging of submissions and the skills levels of proponents, to production values, chain of title and stipulations for English language versions.

The reality is that imposing such a regime on the unique community television model that ICTV has developed, which is based on principles of open access and responsiveness to community initiative, is a death sentence. The vast majority of remote Indigenous producers are simply not resourced or inclined to deal with all the red tape.

It was precisely to break through such gate keeping structures that the remote community media networks evolved, giving community-based media makers the opportunity to say the things they wanted and needed to say to their own communities without the mediation of prescriptive, “professional” oversight, or the intervention of external authority and experts. And ICTV has done this exceedingly well.

ICTV - custom fit

ICTV’s success in producing high volumes of affordable television for remote community audiences has come precisely from the flexibility it commands in relation to production processes.

Decisions regarding what was made for ICTV were not centralised but made by each contributing media organisation according to directions from their elders, cultural imperatives, the current of local events, language and information needs within a local-regional context; authentic community self-representation was preserved through local ownership and control of the production process; each community determined the production values that might be appropriate for them; open access to ICTV for Indigenous producers was assured since all programming submitted to ICTV was broadcast, with exceptions made only in deference to cultural sensitivities attending the deceased.

Such an inclusive and non-discriminatory approach is anathema to conventional, “professional” television organisations, and something that NITV cannot hope to match.

A fair and rational outcome

ICTV does not deserve to be punished for its success. The Minister should pause now and gather better-informed advice. With a fresh approach that demonstrates understanding for the crucial and distinctive role that ICTV plays, the Minister should reconsider the “one organisation” position that is at the root of the current crisis, and reinstate a satellite carrier for ICTV.

Given the opportunity to serve their respective domains, ICTV and NITV could achieve something great for Indigenous broadcasting, they could compliment each other while serving their own distinct roles, and instead of being stuck with a scenario of winners and losers, we could be carrying forward ICTV’s gains co-operatively.

Whatever the outcome, ICTV will persist because ICTV is a product of, and can do media better, for the bush because it provides an essential service that cannot be replicated by NITV, and because those who understand how much community media means to people in the bush, cannot walk away from their obligations.

The Minister, DCITA and NITV must now decide whether they choose true partnership with the bush.